Longevity of APS-C Format

Of course this all goes out the door at some time in the future when you
realise that all these nice new cheap FF D-SLR's take a much better pic,
yes better lenses will be more expensive but if you want better pics then
that is the price you will have to pay.

People who talk about cheap FF dSLRs have no clue as to what it takes to
produce a full-frame sensor. Making a single silicon wafer and taking it
through all of the various steps can cost as much as $20,000. Even as that
drops, you only get 20 full-frame sensors on a wafer, according to Canon.
Because of the advantagers of packing around the periphery, you can get 200
APS-C sensors on a wafer. Right off the bat, your sensor costs are 10x
lower with APS-C.

Making it better, defects *will* ruin some sensors on each wafer. If you
lose two full-frame sensors out of twenty, that's a big deal. If you lose
two out of 200, it's nothing. So the cost of an APS-C sensor is *less* than
1/10th that of a full-frame sensor.

Making it even better, the lithography required to make full-frame sensors
is much more demanding (and hence, more expensive) than it is for an APS-C
sensor. So, that means that APS-Cs are even cheaper.

Add that all together, and as long as manufcturers can produce APS-C
sensors (which can actually provide an astoundingly good image) at less than
1/10th the cost of full-frame, and if you think they're going to ditch them,
you're just plain nuts. It ain't going to happen.

Then again, there are people who *prefer* APS-C size. Folks who need
fast, super-long lenses (which tend to provide obscene resolutions) can get
more reach and use from an APS-C sensor than by cropping down the image from
a full-frame sensor. When getting a lens that's 1.6x longer (at the same
aperture) means $20,000 - or isn't even possible - then that gets awfully
appealing. Sit down and figure out how much it would cost you to get a lens
for a 5D that would give you the same as a 400mm f/2.8L on a 20D.

steve

When full frame gets down to $1000, 1.6x will be about $300. They will
stop making expensive EF-S lenses for the cheap 1.6x cameras by then.

I doubt 1.6x cameras will ever be $300.

If (or when) full-frame cameras ever get down to $1,000, it's not
unreasonable to imagine that 1.6x will be that cheap, or at least nearly so.

Even for the most advanced fabs in the world, making a chip with even 400
square millimeters is a very big task, and carries a very big price tag -
and a full-frame sensor is more than double that size.

So, again - if full-frame cameras ever do get to $1,000, a $300 "Rebel"
camera would be reasonable. The real question is "Will full-frame cameras
ever get down to $1,000", or at least "How long will it take". Personally,
I think it's going to be quite a while.

As Canon has *explicitly* said in the past, they do intend to go full
frame in the future for ALL their dSLR models except the entry level.

I could be wrong, but I don't rememeber them saying that. They've said
that they're going to do away with 1.3x, and they've said that the 1.6x will
live on *at least* in the entry models - but I'd love to see actual quotes
where they say that *all* cameras but the entry models will be full-frame.

steve

If you are shooting dollar
bills from 20 feet away and then blowing them up to 10x life size so
you can see the red and blue threads, you will get slightly sharper
results with a 35mm sensor. Otherwise, no one can tell the difference.

Wait until you see what ISO 3200 looks like from a 5D compared to a 30D...

steve

Pete D wrote:

"DHB" wrote in message
.. .
On 28 Sep 2006 07:29:35 -0700, "panabiker" wrote:

I recently bought an Rebel XT and realized that the so called "digital"
lense does not cover 35mm format. Now the question is, how long will it
be before the manufacturers migrate to full-frame format.

Most are already their but I suspect you meant *exclusively*.
Even if Full Frame sensor prices drop to the same cost of present day
crop factored sensors, don't you think the cost of crop factored
sensor will still be less expensive to produce?

I ask because I don't want to buy several "digital" lenses and 5 years
later,
no new bodies can use them. On the other hand, I suppose, at the same
cost,
the smaller coverage lenses can be made sharper than the 35mm lenses
because of less design constraint?

Think cost to benefit ratio. Some of us (like myself) like
the crop factored cameras in part because we favor the telephoto end
for most of our photographic needs. Here a crop factored DSKR can be
a plus in providing a boost in the equivalent effective focal
length(s). I for 1 like my very inexpensive ($75 USD) Canon EF 50mm
f1.8 lens which acts much like an 80mm lens on my 300D & or 30D.

The bottom line for me & I suspect others, is that a crop
factored DSLR will very likely always be less costly to produce than a
FF DSLR. So if that's all I need & or it actually meets my needs
better than a FF DSLR, why would I want a FF DSLR?

Also I do like the fact that a crop factored DSLR does to some
extent use the sweat spot (central) portion of most EF lenses to
achieve better corner sharpness. If I include the 18-55mm kit lens
that came with my 300D, I own 3 EF-S lenses & they each have a purpose
& each still get used for certain things.

The original 300D (1.6x crop factored sensor) brought the DSLR
within affordable range for many. I suspect they will continue to do
so for a great many years to come, bringing more P&S owners over to a
DSLR sooner than they might have come were there only FF DSLR cameras
to choose from. Also I still own P&S cameras & always will because
they each have their place.

Respectfully, DHB


Of course this all goes out the door at some time in the future when you
realise that all these nice new cheap FF D-SLR's take a much better pic, yes
better lenses will be more expensive but if you want better pics then that
is the price you will have to pay.

The problem is how long do we wait for the FF dSLR's.

For you folks in your 20s, it might make sense to wait.

I'm past 70. Shall I wait also?

I have no idea why some of you get a fixed idea into your
heads that solution A is better than solution B in all
cases. Photography is a complex subject with many tradeoffs.
What works for one may not at all work for another.

---- Paul J. Gans

Steve Wolfe wrote:
If you are shooting dollar
bills from 20 feet away and then blowing them up to 10x life size so
you can see the red and blue threads, you will get slightly sharper
results with a 35mm sensor. Otherwise, no one can tell the difference.

Wait until you see what ISO 3200 looks like from a 5D compared to a 30D...

So what? If you like awful pictures, why not crank up the ISO to a
million? Or a billion? Or a googleplex? Yeah, that's what you need.

Foo. I remember film. For a long time, the highest ISO you could get
was 1000. And then only in B&W.

Okay, if you are one of those teensy weensy minority of photographers
who actually need a high ISO, then by all means, make that your only
criterion for judging the worth of a camera. But too often high ISO is
being used as a poor substitute for good technique.

Frankly, when someone starts telling me "ISO 3200" my first thought is
"crappy photographer." Sometimes I am wrong, but 90% of the time I am
not.

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:49:36 -0600, "Steve Wolfe"
wrote:

If you are shooting dollar
bills from 20 feet away and then blowing them up to 10x life size so
you can see the red and blue threads, you will get slightly sharper
results with a 35mm sensor. Otherwise, no one can tell the difference.

Wait until you see what ISO 3200 looks like from a 5D compared to a 30D...

steve

Wow, am I the only 1 who notices the similarities in this
APS-C versus FF sensor debate & the same either or thinking of RAW
versus JPEG?

They *both exist now* & there are pros & cons for each, cost,
time & need are just a few considerations. DSLRs provide different
options not easily reproduced with P&S cameras. 1 does *not need* to
take an either or stance on APS-C / FF / P&S any more than 1 *needs*
to take an either or stance on RAW versus JPEG when most DSLRs provide
options to shoot *both*. With memory price continuing to drop while
write speeds rise, there is increasingly less reason to opt for
*either or*.

Why would a photographic company produce a very low cost APS-C
DSLR in the $300 USD range if/when they could afford to do so?
Simple, we are increasingly living in a disposable age & a $300 DSLR
with reasonably priced, light weight EF-S type lenses would appeal to
those adventurous types who would be comfortable taking such a lower
cost DSLR on high risk adventures.

Thinks like, scuba diving, sky diving, hang gliding, mountain
climbing, snow skiing, etc.......... In all of these cases a P&S may
work OK too but a relatively small & inexpensive APS-C DSLR with even
just an inexpensive $75 USD 50mm f1.8 lens would likely be a better
choice & also be a much better cost effective alternative.

Last point is that if you plan to migrate over to a FF DSLR in
the future than only buy EF lenses that will work on both. As for me,
I buy what I *need* & what I can afford so long as it meets "my
needs", the needs of others will be very different.

Bottom line is that I might *prefer* a BMW or Mercedes Bens
but either my budget or practicality might have me choosing a Toyota
or a Honda because it's what's best for "my needs".

Life is full of choices & what's right for 1 may be very
different for another!

Respectfully, DHB
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

"Steve Wolfe" wrote in message
...

Of course this all goes out the door at some time in the future when you
realise that all these nice new cheap FF D-SLR's take a much better pic,
yes better lenses will be more expensive but if you want better pics then
that is the price you will have to pay.

People who talk about cheap FF dSLRs have no clue as to what it takes to
produce a full-frame sensor. Making a single silicon wafer and taking it
through all of the various steps can cost as much as $20,000. Even as
that drops, you only get 20 full-frame sensors on a wafer, according to
Canon. Because of the advantagers of packing around the periphery, you can
get 200 APS-C sensors on a wafer. Right off the bat, your sensor costs
are 10x lower with APS-C.

Making it better, defects *will* ruin some sensors on each wafer. If you
lose two full-frame sensors out of twenty, that's a big deal. If you lose
two out of 200, it's nothing. So the cost of an APS-C sensor is *less*
than 1/10th that of a full-frame sensor.

Making it even better, the lithography required to make full-frame
sensors is much more demanding (and hence, more expensive) than it is for
an APS-C sensor. So, that means that APS-Cs are even cheaper.

Add that all together, and as long as manufcturers can produce APS-C
sensors (which can actually provide an astoundingly good image) at less
than 1/10th the cost of full-frame, and if you think they're going to
ditch them, you're just plain nuts. It ain't going to happen.

Then again, there are people who *prefer* APS-C size. Folks who need
fast, super-long lenses (which tend to provide obscene resolutions) can
get more reach and use from an APS-C sensor than by cropping down the
image from a full-frame sensor. When getting a lens that's 1.6x longer
(at the same aperture) means $20,000 - or isn't even possible - then that
gets awfully appealing. Sit down and figure out how much it would cost
you to get a lens for a 5D that would give you the same as a 400mm f/2.8L
on a 20D.

steve


All I am saying is that in the future they will get better at making FF
sensors.

"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
...
Pete D wrote:

"DHB" wrote in message
. ..
On 28 Sep 2006 07:29:35 -0700, "panabiker" wrote:

I recently bought an Rebel XT and realized that the so called "digital"
lense does not cover 35mm format. Now the question is, how long will it
be before the manufacturers migrate to full-frame format.

Most are already their but I suspect you meant *exclusively*.
Even if Full Frame sensor prices drop to the same cost of present day
crop factored sensors, don't you think the cost of crop factored
sensor will still be less expensive to produce?

I ask because I don't want to buy several "digital" lenses and 5 years
later,
no new bodies can use them. On the other hand, I suppose, at the same
cost,
the smaller coverage lenses can be made sharper than the 35mm lenses
because of less design constraint?

Think cost to benefit ratio. Some of us (like myself) like
the crop factored cameras in part because we favor the telephoto end
for most of our photographic needs. Here a crop factored DSKR can be
a plus in providing a boost in the equivalent effective focal
length(s). I for 1 like my very inexpensive ($75 USD) Canon EF 50mm
f1.8 lens which acts much like an 80mm lens on my 300D & or 30D.

The bottom line for me & I suspect others, is that a crop
factored DSLR will very likely always be less costly to produce than a
FF DSLR. So if that's all I need & or it actually meets my needs
better than a FF DSLR, why would I want a FF DSLR?

Also I do like the fact that a crop factored DSLR does to some
extent use the sweat spot (central) portion of most EF lenses to
achieve better corner sharpness. If I include the 18-55mm kit lens
that came with my 300D, I own 3 EF-S lenses & they each have a purpose
& each still get used for certain things.

The original 300D (1.6x crop factored sensor) brought the DSLR
within affordable range for many. I suspect they will continue to do
so for a great many years to come, bringing more P&S owners over to a
DSLR sooner than they might have come were there only FF DSLR cameras
to choose from. Also I still own P&S cameras & always will because
they each have their place.

Respectfully, DHB


Of course this all goes out the door at some time in the future when you
realise that all these nice new cheap FF D-SLR's take a much better pic,
yes
better lenses will be more expensive but if you want better pics then that
is the price you will have to pay.

The problem is how long do we wait for the FF dSLR's.

For you folks in your 20s, it might make sense to wait.

I'm past 70. Shall I wait also?

I have no idea why some of you get a fixed idea into your
heads that solution A is better than solution B in all
cases. Photography is a complex subject with many tradeoffs.
What works for one may not at all work for another.

---- Paul J. Gans

Paul, Seriously look at what I wrote, if your time is so short then you will
have to spend the money now if you want better photos, thats just the way it
is. 5D is affordable now, go for it.

Steve Wolfe wrote:

If (or when) full-frame cameras ever get down to $1,000, it's not
unreasonable to imagine that 1.6x will be that cheap, or at least nearly so.


Certainly, there's no question that 1.6x crop dSLRs can be built and
sold at $300 in the future. But the real question is: Will it make
any sense to market a product like that? The answer is a resounding
NO. By the time APS-C sized sensors are cheap enough to be sold in
$299 dSLRs, it'll be cheap enough to be installed in point & shoot
cameras. Now, does it make any sense to market APS-C dSLR in the same
price range as Point & Shoot cameras with the exact same sensor? Of
course not. Historically, good lenses don't go down in prices. Does
it make sense to try and sell $299 dSLRs that require the use of $600
lenses? Probably not. There aren't many people in the world who would
be willing to pay $600 for a lens, but not $999 for a full frame dSLR
body.

But I'm not saying 1.6x crop cameras will be obsolete soon. I'm saying
that when the price reaches a certain treshhold (ie $600), it no longer
makes sense for Canon to lower the price any further. Not unless some
technological breakthrough brings lens prices down significantly.





I could be wrong, but I don't rememeber them saying that. They've said
that they're going to do away with 1.3x, and they've said that the 1.6x will
live on *at least* in the entry models - but I'd love to see actual quotes
where they say that *all* cameras but the entry models will be full-frame.


http://www.digit.no/wip4/detail.epl?id=59456

Look for the name "Brian Worley".

wrote:
Steve Wolfe wrote:
If (or when) full-frame cameras ever get down to $1,000, it's not
unreasonable to imagine that 1.6x will be that cheap, or at least nearly so.


Certainly, there's no question that 1.6x crop dSLRs can be built and
sold at $300 in the future. But the real question is: Will it make
any sense to market a product like that? The answer is a resounding
NO. By the time APS-C sized sensors are cheap enough to be sold in
$299 dSLRs, it'll be cheap enough to be installed in point & shoot
cameras. Now, does it make any sense to market APS-C dSLR in the same
price range as Point & Shoot cameras with the exact same sensor? Of
course not. Historically, good lenses don't go down in prices. Does
it make sense to try and sell $299 dSLRs that require the use of $600
lenses? Probably not. There aren't many people in the world who would
be willing to pay $600 for a lens, but not $999 for a full frame dSLR
body.

But I'm not saying 1.6x crop cameras will be obsolete soon. I'm saying
that when the price reaches a certain treshhold (ie $600), it no longer
makes sense for Canon to lower the price any further. Not unless some
technological breakthrough brings lens prices down significantly.


You omit the forces of comptetion.

I could be wrong, but I don't rememeber them saying that. They've said
that they're going to do away with 1.3x, and they've said that the 1.6x will
live on *at least* in the entry models - but I'd love to see actual quotes
where they say that *all* cameras but the entry models will be full-frame.


http://www.digit.no/wip4/detail.epl?id=59456

Look for the name "Brian Worley".

Here's the paragraph:

"Brian Worley, product manager of D-SLR cameras at Canon Europa, said
that it's a long way before all EOS models will have a full size sensor,
but Canon's aim is to equip all models, except the cheapest, with a 35mm
sensor in the future."

He's been sacked by Canon Japan as a result of misrepresentation and
generally shooting off his mouth.

--
John McWilliams